Twitter and Politics - Part I - The Landscape

I've been mulling this topic for a while now and with Friday's Time story about the overall impact of Twitter on our lives, I thought it would be a good time to post about the political and communication implications of this fast-growing technology. For the uninitiated, Twitter is a free microblogging web service which allows the sharing of brief messages (140 characters maximum) among friends, colleagues, and public figures. On the whole, Steven Johnson's Time piece is quite positive. Although it acknowledges Twitter's potential for becoming "an entire new empire of distraction," the article praises Twitter for its immediacy, interactivity, and user-generated innovations, such as hashtag, @ replies, and live searching. Johnson spends little ink on Twitter politics, other than noting that the service offers opportunities both for more exposure to diverse opinions and polarization.

The issue of Twitter's political impact and value is surprisingly complex. On the one hand, Twitter has received its share of scorn and skepticism. One of the earliest and most dramatic examples of Twitter's political power, the student-led, pro-democracy protest in Moldova, has already been debunked, although Johnson perpetuates the tale in his article. On the other hand, it was recently reported that China had, in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, blocked the use of Twitter along with other Internet networking sites. It's been argued that the Chinese action acknowledges "Twitter's new power in mainland China" and its value as a subversive news outlet.

In U.S. politics, Twitter has become yet another element of the partisan divide. Republicans and conservatives are seen as "early adaptors" to this new online craze, a stark contrast to their otherwise lagging Internet presence. The website "Top Conservatives on Twitter" or TCOT, is a sprawling registry of GOP Twitterers numbering in the thousands. However, the "real time" feature of Twitter, along with its built-in bluntness, has generated some GOP embarrassment. Most notably, in the middle of the Somali pirate standoff, Newt Gingrich posted a tweet criticizing President Obama's measured public response as a "major mistake" that made the U.S. "look weak." Not long after, of course, the crisis was decisively resolved, the President's approach was vindicated, and Gingrich (ranked #1 in popularity on TCOT) had to backtrack. During the stimulus bill debate, a Twitter-wielding John McCain garnered attention and raised eyebrows with his now-infamous Top 10 list of wasteful spending.

Those high-profile episodes capture headlines but don't answer the key questions: What does Twitter mean for politics and what does Republicans' embrace of the service mean for the balance of power in web politics? Although some scoff at the idea that the lightly-regarded Twitter offers any real advantage to conservatives, Michael Turk, in a post on TechPresident makes a spirited argument that Democrats ignore the GOP Twitter movement at their own peril. Turk argues that Democrats are making the same mistake their rivals made when underestimating the Left's embrace of the Internet after 2000. Addressing his opponents directly, Turk writes:

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution)....It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter's framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won't happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will - when you find yourself out of power again - be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Pretty strong words from a party that mostly conceded its inferiority in websites, blogs, and social networking up until this point. As expected, Turk's post did not go unnoticed and generated two interesting responses. One blogger argued that social media technology generally favors the grassroots and so Twitter, therefore, would be most useful to those segments of the conservative community that are marginalized (I'm assuming this refers to areas such as gay rights, pro-immigration, etc.). Another response challenged the notion that social media technology alone can truly reverse a party's political fortunes; it still takes "stronger messages and messengers."

I would agree with this last point. I mean, the Democrats' web dominance did not save John Kerry in 2004. In fact, one could even argue that the Right used blogs more sparingly but with more strategic effect in that campaign, with the Dan Rather/National Guard memos debacle inoculating President Bush quite well against war veteran Kerry. Also, it's not like Democrats have been unable to capitalize on social media technology. Obama's campaign excelled at social networking, text messaging, and video sharing. Most likely, both parties, in order to achieve electoral success, will need to play catch-up to master the Obama approach before truly capitalizing on newer platforms, such as Twitter.